← 返回前沿论文

识别 CAR-T 细胞疗效与安全性的调节因素:系统综述与个体患者数据荟萃分析

英文原题:Identifying Modifiers of CAR T-Cell Therapeutic Efficacy and Safety: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.

PubMed 2025/04/08(内容时间) Transfus Med Rev Q2 · IF 3(JCR 2025)

研究概要

我们为 IPDMA 确定了 89 项试验,共纳入 2,331 例患者。

中文摘要

CAR-T细胞疗法可有效治疗复发/难治性血液系统恶性肿瘤,但患者应答和安全结局存在异质性。本研究对血液系统恶性肿瘤CAR-T治疗开展个体患者数据荟萃分析(IPDMA),探讨患者层面因素是否会改变治疗疗效或安全性。检索MEDLINE、Embase和Cochrane CENTRAL,收集并合并纳入试验的个体数据,分析潜在效应修饰因素不同亚组的结局发生率。主要结局为完全缓解;次要结局为细胞因子释放综合征(CRS)及免疫效应细胞相关神经毒性综合征(ICANS)。研究纳入89项试验、2331例患者。根据癌症类型不同,完全缓解比例为25%–75%。接受桥接治疗者完全缓解率低于未接受者(34%比58%,RR .55,95% CI .30–.98);自体细胞来源者也低于异体细胞来源者(53%比67%,RR .61,95% CI .43–.87)。与仅靶向CD19的CAR-T疗法相比,同时靶向CD19及CD20、CD22、CD30、CD33、LeY、NKG2D或BCMA等其他靶点的疗法完全缓解率更高(72%比58%,RR 1.69,95% CI 1.15–2.50)。与异体细胞来源相比,自体细胞来源发生ICANS风险更高(24%比3%,RR 10.48,95% CI 1.87–58.57)。具体癌种中的CAR-T疗法安全性和疗效还受桥接治疗、CAR-T细胞来源和靶点、性别、年龄、细胞输注次数、共刺激结构域及剂量等因素影响。

展开英文摘要原文

CAR T-cell therapy is effective in relapsed/refractory hematologic malignancies, but its use has been tempered by heterogeneity in response and safety outcomes. We performed individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) of CAR T-cell therapy in patients with hematologic malignancies to explore whether patient-level factors modify therapeutic efficacy/safety. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL for relevant trials. IPD was collected and pooled from each included trial, and prevalence of outcomes among strata of potential modifiers was explored. Our primary outcome was complete response, and the secondary outcomes were cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and immune effector cell associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS). We identified 89 trials comprising 2,331 patients for the IPDMA. Complete response proportion ranged from 25% to 75% depending on cancer type. Decreased complete response was seen in those that received bridging therapy compared to those that did not (34% vs 58%, RR:0.55, 95% CI:0.30-0.98), as well as with autologous cell sources compared to allogeneic sources (53% vs 67%, RR:0.61, 95% CI:0.43-0.87). Compared to CAR T-cell therapies targeting CD19 alone, therapies that combine CD19 targeting with additional targets such as CD20, CD22, CD30, CD33, LeY, NKG2D, or BCMA were associated with higher complete response rates (72% vs 58%, RR:1.69, 95% CI:1.15-2.50). Autologous cell sources demonstrated increased risk of ICANS relative to allogeneic sources (24% vs 3%, RR:10.48, 95% CI:1.87-58.57). Safety and efficacy of CAR T-cell therapy within specific cancer types was also affected by modifiers including bridging therapy, CAR T-cell source, CAR T-cell target, sex, age, number of cell infusions, co-stimulatory domain, and dose.

论文信息

作者
Lalu MM、Igweokpala S、Kekre N、Jeffers MS、Montroy J、Ghiasi M、Hay K、McComb S
第一作者单位
Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.Canada
通讯作者单位
Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: dafergusson@ohri.ca.Canada
文献类型
系统综述 · 荟萃分析 · 非美国政府资助研究
期刊
Transfusion medicine reviews2025 Apr
原文标识
PubMed 40280037 · DOI 10.1016/j.tmrv.2025.150897